What is "supernatural"

[Angel]

One common objection that I get in regards to the supernatural is that it has no reasonable meaning. One specific objection is that the definition of the supernatural contradicts what nature means. Some skeptics who make this claim even go as far as saying that everything is natural, and claims of anything being supernatural are just superstition and thus misunderstood or unknown natural phenomena. With this in mind, I will attempt to establish a coherent definition for the supernatural along with 4 criteria points to further elaborate on that definition. I will also define "nature" since the supernatural is defined in terms of it. Keep in mind this is more about "meaning" and not necessarily proving the existence of. After all, having a good definition for some thing should be the first step since only then you can know what it is that you need to prove, if provable. I'll leave it up to you guys to let me know whether or not if my definition is coherent or unreasonable.

Definitions:
Supernatural: any place, person (or being), or phenomena that is not of or from nature nor restricted by its laws.

Nature: The forces and processes that produce and control all the phenomena of the material world: the laws of nature.



Criteria (further elaboration on key parts of my definition and the supernatural in general):

1. Any person, place, or thing that's not from nature. Some may say that when God visits Earth, or more generally the natural world, He's natural at that point. I disagree, just because God is in nature, that doesn't mean He's from nature.

2. Not restricted to the laws of nature. Something would be call supernatural if it was able to violate an *authentic* or *true* law of nature. The words "authentic" or "true" are emphasized to indicate that a supernatural event is is the breaking of a *true* law of nature not simply just a product of misunderstanding the laws of nature or ignorance of a law of nature. If it's an *authentic* or *true* law of nature, then it would be an actual correct law of nature that was broken.

3. Immaterial. This is a tricky criteria since critics would say logic or any other concept is immaterial; does that therefore make it supernatural? To solve this issue for the time being I have considered restricting this criteria to only applying to immaterial *beings* and not just anything immaterial.
*As an exception, I'd also say that some supernatural events can also be observed. For example, Jesus walking on water would be an example of what a supernatural event that we could observe. You'd know this was supernatural by considering my criteria #2 which is right before this one.*

4. Not explainable as a law of nature. I don't believe that science has to be only a pursuit of knowledge under the paradigm of naturalism. Therefore, science in the future may choose to openly explore supernatural aspects and potentially gain some understanding of how the supernatural works, enough to class something as being supernatural. That is, it wouldn't fall into the category of any of the laws of nature. This would be like explaining something to be immaterial.

[TheMessage]

I never said energy was an immaterial being, I said that ghosts (If they exist) could be composed of energy. This would make them natural immaterial beings, so the criteria of immaterial being may not necessarilly indicate a supernatural being.

Even if ghosts were composed of energy, they could not be made of 100% energy because then all they'd be is energy at that point. You already mentioned that energy and immaterial beings are not the same, since energy isn't a being. Assuming you're right, the aspects of ghosts that are not composed of energy would still leave room for unnatural characteristics. We could also consider that
not all energy is only in the "material" world because God is also an immaterial being that can't said to be natural since He's described as the creator of nature which means He was and can be outside of it. Your explanation also doesn't factor in where these ghosts are said to come from, and the very fact they're surviving in a disembodied state, nor their ability to communicate and to materialize and dematerialize at will which are supernatural related things by definition.

If we're discussing things that we don't have solid evidence for then why can't being be composed of energy? The primary aspect of being a 'being' is some sort of sentience which is caused by chemical reactions which generate energy. A being composed of energy would simply cut out the middle man of chemical reaction while still maintaining sentience through the energy that composes it. In this way it is logically possible for there to be natural immaterial beings in the form of energy beings.

Before bringing the argument of God into this discussion you have to show that such a being is even likely to exist and which one you're talking about.

As for where the ghosts would come from, them being energy does answer that as we have energy, so we know it is already a part of nature. Thus beings composed of energy would be a part of nature. Surviving at a disembodied state, assuming that the energy of their being is capable of producing sentience, is much simpler than surviving in a corporeal form as there is no body to maintain with food, water and rest. The ability to communicate is easy, since they can use kinetic energy to move objects and manipulate sound waves to produce auditory effects emulating speech. Also, who said they can materialize? By all real world accounts of possible interaction with what may or may not be ghosts (What a mouthful...), they are immaterial.

Totally natural.

[TheMessage]

One example is if an immaterial being materialize and just long enough to where we'd see it and then dematerialize again. That is what ghosts in stories and anecdotal reports are said to do. That is not to say or prove ghosts existence but we understand and identify that if it did happen or in fiction even and that's all I intend to establish, defintion-wise ( that is what it is, not if it exists).

If they "materialize", they are subject to our reality because they would at that point be made of components of our reality which we can observe. If we can observe something, it can be explained through a natural process, since it is part of one.

So you don't believe a supernatural occurrence could be an observable event? Not all of my criterias are necessarily connected as in one relying on the other. In some instances, just one criteria alone can satisfy something being supernatural by definition. So although, something may not be immaterial, it still may be supernatural by violating a law of nature. Someone walking on water or flying like SUPERman would be an example of a supernatural event that could be observed.

Those examples also aren't necessarilly supernatural. One must merely achieve some sort of natural bouyancy and maintain balance to walk on water... though note that the merely does not indicate that I believe that this is at all a likely occurance anytime soon, if ever. Superman was totally natural, despite having super in his name. He came from another planet that was governed by natural processess.

[Angel]

That's my point exactly, the word about signifies that we can form ideas about illogical things but that the ideas themselves are not either illogical or contradictory. Contradiction is the real sticking point here and you've yet to demonstrate how one can occur in nature.

Religious ideas are ideas and some of them are illogical. Atheists and even some religionists would agree with that. I've stated examples using the word "about" in relation to ideas and examples on ideas themselves as I just did in this post.

[Angel]

Those examples also aren't necessarilly supernatural. One must merely achieve some sort of natural bouyancy and maintain balance to walk on water

So that's the secret, heh?


The rarity of this event alone shows that it's not a normal feat as you're trying to brush it off as. The problem with your theory is that it doesn't square with the laws of nature which regulates what happens in the natural world and with how scientists understand some of those laws. So you can't just go making up stuff. I'm giving examples based on what the word supernatural means. If you want to offer naturalistic examples, then you need to based those off of what the laws of nature are, and so far, you're not doing that.

Superman was totally natural, despite having super in his name. He came from another planet that was governed by natural processess.

Superman as a character may have been from the natural world, but that is not to say His ability was natural. He's described as being able to break the law of gravity simply by flying. That is an example of a supernatural feat.

[TheMessage]

That's my point exactly, the word about signifies that we can form ideas about illogical things but that the ideas themselves are not either illogical or contradictory. Contradiction is the real sticking point here and you've yet to demonstrate how one can occur in nature.

Religious ideas are ideas and some of them are illogical. Atheists and even some religionists would agree with that. I've stated examples using the word "about" in relation to ideas and examples on ideas themselves as I just did in this post.

Ok, they're illogical. So What? You're supposed to be gunning for contradictions and an idea about a contradiction is still not a physical contradiction.

[TheMessage]

Those examples also aren't necessarilly supernatural. One must merely achieve some sort of natural bouyancy and maintain balance to walk on water

So that's the secret, heh?


The rarity of this event alone shows that it's not a normal feat as you're trying to brush it off as. The problem with your theory is that it doesn't square with the laws of nature which regulates what happens in the natural world and with how scientists understand some of those laws. So you can't just go making up stuff. I'm giving examples based on what the word supernatural means. If you want to offer naturalistic examples, then you need to based those off of what the laws of nature are, and so far, you're not doing that.

Superman was totally natural, despite having super in his name. He came from another planet that was governed by natural processess.

Superman as a character may have been from the natural world, but that is not to say His ability was natural. He's described as being able to break the law of gravity simply by flying. That is an example of a supernatural feat.

As to water walking, it's never happened anyways, so I'm not sure what point you're trying to get at. We've already settled that the definition can be applied to fictional things. I still contend that if someone ever manages to walk on water it will be completely supported by the true laws of nature, even if it happens that currently we have flawed knowledge as to what those laws may be.

Are planes supernatural now too? It was a comic book, they didn't feel like wasting an entire issue on explaining how superman can fly. Perhaps his species can manipulate kinetic energy to produce enough force to launch into flight. The outstretched fist is the focal point of this energy. When they need to hover, they manipulate the energy inwards at an even rate and the conflicting forces hold them up.

[Angel]

Ok, they're illogical. So What? You're supposed to be gunning for contradictions and an idea about a contradiction is still not a physical contradiction.

I was at least trying to clear logic out of the way of this particular issue. Now that I think about it, even if logic did apply to the laws of nature that would mean that that illogical claims or assertions would also violate a law of nature. That's because logic applies to assertions and not just physical things as you're were wrongly trying limit it to. Besides that, if you consider the purpose of logic you'd acknowledge that it's a tool to obtain or test our knowledge that we gain of the natural world, it is not the law of nature itself. I would no more call the scientific method a law of nature than I would call logic a law of nature.

[kayky]

This response is going to drive Message nuts, but I can think of no other way to state it. Nature is that aspect of God that has come into form. The supernatural is that aspect of God that has not. The first can be known through science. The second can only be experienced through intuition and imagination (still haven't come up with more apt words).

[Angel]

As to water walking, it's never happened anyways, so I'm not sure what point you're trying to get at. We've already settled that the definition can be applied to fictional things. I still contend that if someone ever manages to walk on water it will be completely supported by the true laws of nature, even if it happens that currently we have flawed knowledge as to what those laws may be.

At least we've established that definitions don't necessarily relate to only things that exists. Cuz all I'm doing by citing random examples that would violate a law of nature, is just like describing to you what things would fall under the definition of a "myth". Unicorns, the Cyclops (greek mythology), Medusa, all these we have a picture of what they are and that they are myths despite the fact that we haven't seen these things actually existing in real life. I also have tried to show that my definition is not contradictory which is one usual objection that's raised even when I've restricted the term to just fiction things. You also bring up another point about scientists having flawed knowledge of the laws of nature. That may be but once you start going down that road then what's to keep someone from questioning all of our current understanding of the laws of nature and you're left with not being certain of any law of nature.

I suppose if we can establish what the laws of nature are (or at least some), then we can establish what the supernatural is, definition-wise. Then if we know what it is, the next step can be to prove that it exists.

Are planes supernatural now too? It was a comic book, they didn't feel like wasting an entire issue on explaining how superman can fly. Perhaps his species can manipulate kinetic energy to produce enough force to launch into flight. The outstretched fist is the focal point of this energy. When they need to hover, they manipulate the energy inwards at an even rate and the conflicting forces hold them up.

What if it's done by "will power" only, just as the stories of Jesus describe Him healing sicknesses by just speaking a command?

[Angel]

This response is going to drive Message nuts, but I can think of no other way to state it. Nature is that aspect of God that has come into form. The supernatural is that aspect of God that has not. The first can be known through science. The second can only be experienced through intuition and imagination (still haven't come up with more apt words).

That's an interesting way of looking at it and it makes sense to me.